In Depth

A special judge appointed in a paternity case ruled correctly that matters in the case remanded by the Court of Appeals should
be heard by the prior judge who heard the evidence, the appellate court held in a second appeal on the matter.

In In
re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y., 39A04-1310-JP-512, father R.A. requested a change of judge
under Trial Rule 76(B), which was granted. He appealed a prior trial court ruling to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Jefferson Circuit Special Judge James B. Morris took the case after Judge Ted Todd granted father’s change-of-judge
motion. When Morris received the matter on remand, he ruled that Trial Rule 63(A) requires a judge who hears evidence to make
all rulings relating to that evidence.

“On appeal, Father contends that Trial Rules 76(B) and 63(A) conflict, and his right to a change of judge under Trial
Rule 76(B) trumps Trial Rule 63(A)’s preference for the judge who heard the evidence,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik
wrote for the panel. “We conclude that the rules do not conflict; rather, they govern different aspects of Father’s
case — Father’s change-of-judge request under Trial Rule 76(B) applies prospectively to his modification
petition, and Trial Rule 63(A) operates retroactively to ensure that the remanded issues are considered by the judge who heard
the evidence, Judge Todd. We affirm.”

A separate appellate panel heard another appeal from the same case, affirming Morris’ denial of father’s motion
to correct error and an order reinstating his visitation time with a child he had in 2003. He and the child’s mother
never married, and their relationship ended in 2011.

“(W)e cannot hold the court abused its discretion when it denied Father’s motion to correct error,” Judge
Melissa May wrote for the panel in this appeal. “We accordingly affirm the denial of Father’s Motion to Correct
Error regarding the dismissal of his petition to modify custody and support.”

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.